Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (31805)	9/16/2009 2:27:41 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Hidden Costs Rich Lowry The Corner Capretta has an excellent post on Baucus. Read the whole thing to follow the argument in its entirety, but here’s a key bit: <<< For low wage, full-time workers who are offered qualified coverage on the job, the hidden and implicit taxes of Obamacare are truly stunning. A worker with an annual income at 200 percent of the federal poverty line — again, $44,100 if the worker is married with two children — could be required to sign up with insurance costing $13,375 per year. The employee portion of the premium would be notionally capped at 13 percent of annual income, or $5,720. The employer would pay the other $7,655 — but the employer portion too would come out of the worker’s take-home pay (possibly after some period of adjustment). Employer-paid premiums are tax-subsidized, but this existing federal tax subsidy is worth much less for low wage workers than their higher salaried colleagues and it’s certainly worth much less than the subsidies being proposed for insurance secured through the exchanges. At 200 percent of the federal poverty line, the foregone tax liability on an average employer-sponsored plan is likely to be about $4,000 (including payroll taxes). The other $9,000 plus in health insurance premiums — regardless of how it is split between worker and firm — would be shouldered by the worker himself. At $44,100, a $9,000 health insurance premium amounts to 20 percent of income >>> corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (31805)	9/16/2009 2:53:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"It looks like we're being pushed aside by the Democratic leadership so the Senate can move forward on a bill that, up to this point, does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage that we set forth when this process began," Baucus' Health Bill Draws Fire on Both Sides AP Wednesday, September 16, 2009 WASHINGTON -- After months of bipartisan negotiations on a health care overhaul bill, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on Tuesday made it official that he's moving ahead without Republican support. He told reporters he intends to unveil a detailed outline of legislation on Wednesday and convene the committee next week to vote on it. Despite numerous gestures to Republicans, Baucus fell short in his quest to assemble a coalition of senators from both parties behind his plan. Baucus' proposal is certain to shun the liberals' call for the government to sell insurance, and rely instead on co-ops to offer coverage in competition with private industry. His approach includes a requirement for individuals to buy insurance, with financial penalties for those who don't. Rather than a mandate for larger businesses to provide coverage for employees, they would be required to defray the cost of any government subsidies their employees would qualify for. "I expect by the time we finally vote in the committee, there will be Republican support," Baucus said, but other Democrats said they believed Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, may be the only one of the panel's 10 GOP members to vote for the package. Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming have also been involved in the marathon negotiations, but both have raised late objections. Liberals, too, expressed their unhappiness. "The way it is now there is no way I can vote for the package," Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said on a conference call with reporters. Grassley applauded Baucus' effort at bipartisanship, but complained that Senate Democratic leaders and the White House had imposed an artificial deadline on the negotiators and that Democratic leaders "haven't made a commitment to back a broad bipartisan bill through the entire process." "It looks like we're being pushed aside by the Democratic leadership so the Senate can move forward on a bill that, up to this point, does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage that we set forth when this process began," Grassley said in a statement. He cited Republican concerns over cost, taxpayer funding for abortion services, medical malpractice and subsidies for illegal immigrants in any health care bill. "We've been clear from the start that we're willing to stay at the table," Grassley added. "There's no reason not to keep working until we get it right." Whatever the difficulties, Democrats appeared to gain precious political ground with word that the Massachusetts Legislature could begin voting this week on legislation permitting Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. That would give Democrats a 60th seat in the Senate, and help them overcome any filibuster mounted by Republicans. Congressional Democrats are grappling with President Obama's unexpected call for immediate access to insurance for those with pre-existing medical conditions, as well as richer Medicare drug benefits than envisioned in early versions of health care legislation. Additionally, Obama's pledge in last week's prime-time speech to hold the overall cost of legislation to about $900 billion over a decade has spread concern among House Democrats, who have long contemplated a costlier measure. Yet another late complication, according to several Democrats, is the president's statement that he will not sign a bill "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize." The $900 billion target is "very difficult," Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Tuesday. "This is reducing coverage for poor and working people." Rangel spoke of other "restrictions the president has given in his speech," commenting after senior House Democrats pressed top administration officials in a private meeting for an explanation of Obama's $900 billion price tag. Obama outlined his conditions in last week's speech and an accompanying fact sheet posted on the White House Web site as Democrats point toward votes in the House and Senate this fall. Obama's decision to detail terms for health care legislation came after months of public deference to lawmakers. Neither the bill making its way to the House floor nor two companion measures in the Senate included an interim program to assure coverage for consumers with pre-existing medical conditions. Instead, the bills would have waited until 2013, when numerous consumer protections are envisioned. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the six-member bipartisan group of senators was working at the last minute to meet the president's request. Another official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it involved creation of a high-risk insurance pool, beginning in 2010. No details were available about costs, either to the consumer or the government. In the House, a spokesman for the Ways and Means Committee said legislation does not include Obama's request for immediate availability of insurance for those with pre-existing medical conditions. But lawmakers "are currently drafting a provision for inclusion in the final bill," the spokesman, Matthew Beck, added in an e-mail. Officials in both houses said fulfilling Obama's request on Medicare prescription drug benefits would be considerably more difficult, citing the cost. Nearly a week after Obama's speech, White House aides have not released key details of Obama's various other proposals, including their cost. foxnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (31805)	9/16/2009 5:19:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Me - Sigh! Associated Pravda report below. Most of what you need to know is carefully wordsmithed & buried. IMO, the Baucus plan is horrible. It will boost deficit spending far more than the $856 Billion projected & the fee [READ: TAX] imposed on insurance companies will be paid by us as if it were a direct tax. ************************************************************* Senate's 10-year health fix would cost $856B By ERICA WERNER and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR Associated Press WASHINGTON – Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday brought out the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake — a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing. The bill by Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate panel, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring most people to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine and prohibiting insurance companies from charging more to people with more serious health problems. "This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long," said Baucus, of Montana. "The Finance Committee has carefully worked through the details of health care reform to ensure this package works for patients, for health care providers and for our economy." Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and limits would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers. But the bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member-owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in some areas of the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans. In other ways, including its overall cost and payment mechanisms, the bill tracks closely with the priorities Obama laid out in his speech to Congress last week. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the legislation an "important building block" that "gets us closer to comprehensive health care reform." Baucus is still holding out hope for GOP support when his committee votes on the bill, probably as early as next week. "This is a good bill. This is a balanced bill," he told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "Everyone should understand it's just the beginning, but it's a good beginning." The measure represents the most moderate health care proposal in Congress so far, compared to legislation approved by three committees in the House and the Senate's health panel. Obama's top domestic priority is to revamp the health care system to provide coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and to rein in rising costs. The bill includes provisions to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining health coverage through the new insurance exchanges — reflecting the White House's newly stringent stance on the issue after a Republican House member interrupted Obama's speech last week to accuse him of lying about it. The bill also would prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother would be endangered. It's all but certain that the Baucus provisions will not be the last word on either of those volatile issues. The bill would set up a verification system to make sure people buying insurance in the exchanges are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, using Social Security data and Homeland Security Department files. The bill would impose penalties for fraud and identity theft. While only legal residents would be able to buy coverage through the exchanges, illegal immigrant parents would be able to get insurance for their U.S. born children. The bill would prohibit abortion from being included in any minimum benefits package. However, plans in the exchange could offer unrestricted coverage for abortions, provided that no funds from government subsidies are used to pay for them. Women who want coverage for abortions would have to pay for it with their own money. Wednesday's bill release follows months of negotiations among Baucus and five other Finance Committee senators dubbed the "Gang of Six" — Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. Enzi said he couldn't support the Baucus bill and preferred an incremental approach. In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support. "This is a first step in the process," Snowe said as she promised to continue to work with Baucus and Democrats on coming up with bipartisan legislation. The bill drew quick criticism from Republican leaders. "This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy." Many liberals and labor groups also have concerns. Some wanted Baucus to include a public option, while others fear that, in his effort to hold down the price of his bill, Baucus didn't do enough to make health coverage affordable to working-class Americans. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a member of the Finance Committee, said that he couldn't support the bill in its current form. Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, called it "deeply flawed." Baucus' plan, released as a detailed 223-page summary, aims to make health insurance more affordable for self-employed people and those working for small companies, who now have the biggest problems in getting and keeping coverage. People insured through large employers would not see major changes, but some of their health care benefits would be nicked to help pay for the cost of the plan. The Baucus proposal would limit to $2,000 a year the amount people can contribute to flexible spending accounts, which are used to cover copayments and deductibles not paid by their employers. That provision would raise $16.5 billion over 10 years. Everyone covered through an employer would learn the full costs of their health benefits, which starting next year would be reported on employees' W-2 tax forms. Although family coverage averages about $13,000 a year most workers don't know how much their employer is paying. Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine. The plan proposes a $6 billion annual fee on health insurance providers, which would recoup some of the profits the companies expect to make from millions of new taxpayer-subsidized customers. Unlike the health care bill written by majority Democrats in the House, which permanently rolls back scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, the Baucus plan only suspends the reductions for one year. That trims more than $100 billion from the cost of the bill, but has already led to criticism from the American Medical Association. The legislation makes no changes in medical malpractice laws.** It does incorporate Obama's call for federal funds for state experiments on alternatives to malpractice lawsuits. Democratic leaders are aiming for votes in the full House and Senate this fall. news.yahoo.com

To: Sully- who wrote (31805)	9/18/2009 10:51:06 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Innovation Tax How Max Baucus knifed the medical devices industry. Wall Street Journal Supposedly the Senate’s version of ObamaCare was written by Finance Chairman Max Baucus, but we’re beginning to wonder if the true authors were Abbott and Costello. The vaudeville logic of the plan is that Congress will tax health care to subsidize people to buy health care that new taxes and regulation make more expensive. Look no further than the $40 billion "fee" that Mr. Baucus wants to impose on medical devices and diagnostic equipment. Device manufacturers would pay $4 billion a year in excise taxes, divvied up among them based on U.S. sales. This translates to an annual income tax surcharge anywhere from 10% to 30%, depending on the corporation. Why $40 billion? No reason in particular, except that Mr. Baucus needs to finance nearly $900 billion in new spending and so he'll grab anything within arm's reach. While there are some exemptions, such as tongue depressors and eyeglasses, most of the devices tax will fall on hundreds of thousands of products that are basic components of modern medicine. Some are routine—surgical equipment, diabetes testing supplies—while others are cutting-edge technologies, like replacement joints, pacemakers, stents, and MRI and CT scanners. This new tax will eventually be passed through to patients, increasing health-care costs. It will also harm innovation, taking a big bite out of the research and development that leads to medical advancements. The core of the industry (excluding a few conglomerates like Johnson & Johnson) spent about $9.6 billion on product development in 2007, according to Ernst and Young. The Baucus tax is nearly half that, and also exceeds $3.7 billion, the total venture capital invested in device makers that same year. Even if consumers will ultimately pay one way or another, this tax also offers an instructive lesson in the perils of industry dealmaking in President Obama's Washington. Convinced by the White House that legislation was inevitable, most of the health-care lobbies decided to negotiate and pay ransoms so Democrats would spare their industries greater harm. Sure enough, the device maker lobby, AdvaMed, was among the "stakeholders" that joined with Mr. Obama in a Rose Garden ceremony in May and pledged to "save" $2 trillion over 10 years to fund his program. AdvaMed was nothing if not a team player. It endorsed Democratic inspirations like comparative-effectiveness research and value-based purchasing, despite the danger that under such centralized decision-making the government will decide that the most effective and valuable treatments also happen to be the cheapest—rather than those that are best for patients. It also suggested a variety of other taxes that would have resulted in a lower bottom line, much as Big Pharma promised $80 billion in drug discounts and the American Hospital Association agreed to $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement cuts. But the word on Capitol Hill is that AdvaMed's tribute wasn't handsome enough for Mr. Baucus's tastes. The massive new tax—which wasn't a part of any of his policy blueprints released earlier this year—is in part retaliation. Partly, too, the device makers simply don't have the same political clout as the other big players, making them an easier mark. Old Washington hands are saying the device lobby made a "strategic mistake" by not offering Mr. Baucus more protection money, but the real mistake was trying to buy into the ObamaCare process, instead of trying to defeat its worst ideas outright. And now it may be too late. As we've argued, liberal Democrats think that merely allowing an industry to continue to exist is a concession, and they're already taking the pharma and hospital concessions and running them higher. In the case of devices, patients will be left with higher costs for fewer life-saving technologies. online.wsj.com